in my opinion there has to be adverse educational impact in order to qualify for an IEP -- whether the impact is behavorial (rememberting that it includes "behavior impedes the
childs learning or that of others")
or academic.
It's going to take a while to get some of the kinks worked out of the new 2004 regs. There's still lots of room for misinterpretation and disagreements....
A diagnosis of any kind does not automatically make the student eligible for an IEP.
What about the child who is struggling in school, but has a low average IQ and is performing equal to his ability --say a child has an IQ of 75-85 and has academic standard scores within this same range. Historically this child is not eligible because he/she is performing to his/her ability. These are the kids that really struggle and will continue to struggle, but are not eligible....does this continue to be the case??
Good question. SEA's still have some ability to formulate criteria for eligibility. Based on what I've read, eligibility should be based more on educational need now and not a "magic" formula. Interestingly however, Texas had more than one method of qualifying a student for an IEP. Presenting a "significant discrepancy" wasn't the only way. I doubt Texas was alone in this regard.
But, I suspect there will have to be legal rulings pertinent to IDEA 2004 before things become more clear in some areas.
If we no longer look for discrepancies between IQ and achievement, how is the student who has a very low IQ, yet performs in the normal range, ever identified? In other words, will that student get intervention so that he or she can perform to his or her ability? Or, will the teacher assume that because the student is in the normal range, everything is okay?
If the student is performing in the normal range, why would s/he need intervention? In your example the student would actually be exceeding what would be expected on the basis of his/her IQ. A problem-solving approach is needs based, with needs referring to academic needs irrespective of ability. For example, take two students who are both achieving far below academic standards. The first child has an average IQ and exhibits a discrepancy. The second childs IQ is below average and is commensurate with his/her academic achievement. In a discrepancy model, only the first child would likely receive compensatory education. The second child might be considered performing at his/her ability. In a problem-solving, needs based model, both children would receive intervention due to similar academic needs. The research is quite clear that both types of students respond similarly to quality interventions (i.e., there is no evidence that the child with the discrepancy has instructional needs that are somehow unique to the fact that he or she exhibits a discrepancy). In this model, all children are considered on the basis of educational need, not on the basis of some ability threshold.
Additional Procedures for Identifying
Children With Specific Learning
Disabilities
§ 300.307 Specific learning disabilities.
(a) General. A State must adopt,
consistent with § 300.309, criteria for
determining whether a child has a
specific learning disability as defined in
§ 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria
adopted by the State
(1) Must not require the use of a
severe discrepancy between intellectual
ability and achievement for determining
whether a child has a specific learning
disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10);
(2) Must permit the use of a process
based on the childs response to
scientific, research-based intervention;
and
(3) May permit the use of other
alternative research-based procedures
for determining whether a child has a
specific learning disability, as defined
in § 300.8(c)(10).
(b) Consistency with State criteria. A
public agency must use the State criteria
adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section in determining whether a
child has a specific learning disability.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e3; 1401(30);
1414(b)(6))
§ 300.309 Determining the existence of a
specific learning disability.
(a) The group described in § 300.306
may determine that a child has a
specific learning disability, as defined
in § 300.8(c)(10), if
(1) The child does not achieve
adequately for the childs age or to meet
State-approved grade-level standards in
one or more of the following areas,
when provided with learning
experiences and instruction appropriate
for the childs age or State-approved
grade-level standards:
(i) Oral expression.
(ii) Listening comprehension.
(iii) Written expression.
(iv) Basic reading skill.
(v) Reading fluency skills.
(vi) Reading comprehension.
(vii) Mathematics calculation.
(viii) Mathematics problem solving.
(2)(i) The child does not make
sufficient progress to meet age or State approved
grade-level standards in one
or more of the areas identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section when
using a process based on the childs
response to scientific, research-based
intervention; or
(ii) The child exhibits a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses in
performance, achievement, or both,
relative to age, State-approved grade level
standards, or intellectual
development, that is determined by the
group to be relevant to the identification
of a specific learning disability, using
appropriate assessments, consistent
with §§ 300.304 and 300.305; and
(3) The group determines that its
findings under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
of this section are not primarily the
result of
(i) A visual, hearing, or motor
disability;
(ii) Mental retardation;
(iii) Emotional disturbance;
(iv) Cultural factors;
(v) Environmental or economic
disadvantage; or
(vi) Limited English proficiency.
(b) To ensure that under achievement
in a child suspected of having a specific
learning disability is not due to lack of
appropriate instruction in reading or
math, the group must consider, as part
of the evaluation described in
§§ 300.304 through 300.306
(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to,
or as a part of, the referral process, the
child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings,
delivered by qualified personnel; and
(2) Data-based documentation of
repeated assessments of achievement at
reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during
instruction, which was provided to the
childs parents.
(c) The public agency must promptly
request parental consent to evaluate the
child to determine if the child needs
special education and related services,
and must adhere to the timeframes
described in §§ 300.301 and 300.303,
unless extended by mutual written
agreement of the childs parents and a
group of qualified professionals, as
described in § 300.306(a)(1)
(1) If, prior to a referral, a child has
not made adequate progress after an
appropriate period of time when
provided instruction, as described in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section; and
(2) Whenever a child is referred for an
evaluation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e3; 1401(30);
1414(b)(6))
